America to Sarah Palin: Enough!

a reply to: tsingtao No, People jumped on Palin because she says stupid things. That's honestly all there is to it. None of this "she tells it like it is" and "doesn't take nonsense from anyone" (seriously, how cliche can you get?) stuff has anything to do with that, aside from probably being the reason why she makes those stupid comments in the first place.

originally posted by: Willtell
The country aught to decide to deport Sarah Plain to Mexico or maybe Guatemala

How about no because that doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

a reply to: Flatfish

Spelling bee? Go for it! I'll bet Sarah "the wiz kid" Palin doesn't get past the one syllable phase of the bee. Polls on the other hand don't mean squat. People on this site will say anything just to get the other side riled up.

Opinion and not debatable with facts.


Those people you mentioned were serving in Congress at the time, they were the ones who's approval Bush needed and they were the very ones being repeatedly lied to in order to get it. That's what I meant when I said he lied us into war.

Thats a very low opinion of your fellow democrats to think they could be duped so easily by the dumbest president of all time, especially considering they were in the minority on house select intel committee and voted unanimously on the reports conclusion. They were privy to the same information the republicans were.

Are you trying to say that the liar is not to blame but those who fall for their lies are?

Are you saying that they were they into war by a far superior intellect, never realizing they were being lied to? Or is it they were part and parcel? Maybe what you are just saying is the democrats that voted for the war, and those on the intl committee were liars as well. Or maybe you choose to ignore the fact our current leadership took lessons and has surpassed the teacher and now the student has a PHD in lying to the public.


Then came the 1991 Gulf War which began with a month long air campaign that included over 100,000 sorties and the dropping of over 88,000 tons of bombs. I'll give you three guesses as to what kind of sites were included on those target lists. Wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that we needed to go into Iraq because they had all the "good targets?"

Is this something you have video of or is this just something another liberal progressive expounds as truth from a blog?

Wow, really? What kind of idiot votes 50 times to repeal a law that bears the name of the POTUS who must sign the repeal in order for it to become effective? Wait, wait, wait....I'll tell you what kind, a dumb-assed Tea Partier that's what kind. And what kind of dumb-ass would applaud him for spending their tax dollars so wisely? Wait, wait, Wait....I'll tell what kind, the idiot who voted them into office.

The kind of idiot that does what his constituents want. I know this is hard for you to understand because not many politicians do this anymore and hence the rise of the Tea Party.If you're an idiot for voting someone into office and applaud them for spending your tax money ,you have described a very large segment of the population supporting
the Liar and Chief.

It's apparent that the key words in this paragraph are "I have never understood." FYI, there is a big difference between a budget proposal being approved and a debt limit being raised. One is a proposal of expected expenditures and the other gives us the ability to pay the bills we've already incurred. When you can't pay your bills things get shut down, plain & simple. Problem is, the Tea Party has a problem understanding "plain & simple."

Not really the budget is passed, and funded. Are you saying because the president once again needed the debt limit raised it nullified last years budget? That the money set aside to run the government was exhausted because we ran out of money or there wasn't money to pay for the additional expenditures of your president? As you say the same dumb-ass spending your tax money.

IMO, the modern day Tea Party is really nothing more than the newest incarnation of KKK mentality with a new name and flying a new "Don't Tread On Me" banner.

Do you even know what the gadsden flag stands for or is about? If the Tea Party is the latest incarnation of the KKK how would you explain the black membership? This is very typical of a progressive mentality, cry racist when you it isn't the truth to deflect away from your bad policy. It's a weakness worthy of the ongoing propaganda perpetuated by the Liar and Chief. It shows that instead of attacking policy you attack the people because your policy is of feeble nature and you have nothing left to offer. Tsk, Tsk.

a reply to: Flatfish

Spelling bee? Go for it! I'll bet Sarah "the wiz kid" Palin doesn't get past the one syllable phase of the bee.

But that would still be better than anything Wendy Davis could spell.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Flatfish

Spelling bee? Go for it! I'll bet Sarah "the wiz kid" Palin doesn't get past the one syllable phase of the bee.

But that would still be better than anything Wendy Davis could spell.

Is this the hair color thing??

originally posted by: technical difficulties
a reply to: tsingtao No, People jumped on Palin because she says stupid things. That's honestly all there is to it. None of this "she tells it like it is" and "doesn't take nonsense from anyone" (seriously, how cliche can you get?) stuff has anything to do with that, aside from probably being the reason why she makes those stupid comments in the first place.

originally posted by: Willtell
The country aught to decide to deport Sarah Plain to Mexico or maybe Guatemala

How about no because that doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

oh yeah? what stupid stuff does she say?
all of you haters have never even heard her speak, i bet.

well she ain't no welcome oba-mat.
and lots of people shouldn't talk about saying stupid things.

hear that, harry reid, pelosi, holder, michelle, obama, biden, etc.
no one can beat them in the "wtf did they just say?" dept.

lol.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
a reply to: Flatfish

Spelling bee? Go for it! I'll bet Sarah "the wiz kid" Palin doesn't get past the one syllable phase of the bee. Polls on the other hand don't mean squat. People on this site will say anything just to get the other side riled up.

Opinion and not debatable with facts.


Those people you mentioned were serving in Congress at the time, they were the ones who's approval Bush needed and they were the very ones being repeatedly lied to in order to get it. That's what I meant when I said he lied us into war.

Thats a very low opinion of your fellow democrats to think they could be duped so easily by the dumbest president of all time, especially considering they were in the minority on house select intel committee and voted unanimously on the reports conclusion. They were privy to the same information the republicans were.

Are you trying to say that the liar is not to blame but those who fall for their lies are?

Are you saying that they were they into war by a far superior intellect, never realizing they were being lied to? Or is it they were part and parcel? Maybe what you are just saying is the democrats that voted for the war, and those on the intl committee were liars as well. Or maybe you choose to ignore the fact our current leadership took lessons and has surpassed the teacher and now the student has a PHD in lying to the public.


Then came the 1991 Gulf War which began with a month long air campaign that included over 100,000 sorties and the dropping of over 88,000 tons of bombs. I'll give you three guesses as to what kind of sites were included on those target lists. Wasn't it Rumsfeld who said that we needed to go into Iraq because they had all the "good targets?"

Is this something you have video of or is this just something another liberal progressive expounds as truth from a blog?

Wow, really? What kind of idiot votes 50 times to repeal a law that bears the name of the POTUS who must sign the repeal in order for it to become effective? Wait, wait, wait....I'll tell you what kind, a dumb-assed Tea Partier that's what kind. And what kind of dumb-ass would applaud him for spending their tax dollars so wisely? Wait, wait, Wait....I'll tell what kind, the idiot who voted them into office.

The kind of idiot that does what his constituents want. I know this is hard for you to understand because not many politicians do this anymore and hence the rise of the Tea Party.If you're an idiot for voting someone into office and applaud them for spending your tax money ,you have described a very large segment of the population supporting
the Liar and Chief.

It's apparent that the key words in this paragraph are "I have never understood." FYI, there is a big difference between a budget proposal being approved and a debt limit being raised. One is a proposal of expected expenditures and the other gives us the ability to pay the bills we've already incurred. When you can't pay your bills things get shut down, plain & simple. Problem is, the Tea Party has a problem understanding "plain & simple."

Not really the budget is passed, and funded. Are you saying because the president once again needed the debt limit raised it nullified last years budget? That the money set aside to run the government was exhausted because we ran out of money or there wasn't money to pay for the additional expenditures of your president? As you say the same dumb-ass spending your tax money.

IMO, the modern day Tea Party is really nothing more than the newest incarnation of KKK mentality with a new name and flying a new "Don't Tread On Me" banner.

Do you even know what the gadsden flag stands for or is about? If the Tea Party is the latest incarnation of the KKK how would you explain the black membership? This is very typical of a progressive mentality, cry racist when you it isn't the truth to deflect away from your bad policy. It's a weakness worthy of the ongoing propaganda perpetuated by the Liar and Chief. It shows that instead of attacking policy you attack the people because your policy is of feeble nature and you have nothing left to offer. Tsk, Tsk.

how many of these do the dems want to watch?



obama changed the aca 40 times. 600 mil for a POS website.

there is a budget?! when did that happen? lol.

the sequester was the dems fault. fencing open air memorials, nice.


hotair.com...

"In her column published on Friday, “The Secret War on Black Republicans,” Goff writes and reports on how African-Americans are shamed and intimidated if they come out as Republicans. Often times, they endure far worse treatment from their fellow African-Americans if they run for public office as a Republican.

Citing one recent example in which Florida Republican congressional candidate Gloreatha Scurry-Smith’s face on a campaign billboard was painted white by a vandal, Goff noted how hurtful that experience was for the candidate and her family. She also remarked on how that episode went largely unnoticed by the national media."

a reply to: xuenchen

Ha ha ha really dragging this out Palin didnt hit my wallet like
Alzimers patients nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Thats a very low opinion of your fellow democrats to think they could be duped so easily by the dumbest president of all time, especially considering they were in the minority on house select intel committee and voted unanimously on the reports conclusion. They were privy to the same information the republicans were.

Are you saying that they were they into war by a far superior intellect, never realizing they were being lied to? Or is it they were part and parcel? Maybe what you are just saying is the democrats that voted for the war, and those on the intl committee were liars as well. Or maybe you choose to ignore the fact our current leadership took lessons and has surpassed the teacher and now the student has a PHD in lying to the public.

Those who think they can't be lied to or fooled are probably the most susceptible among us to just that very thing. No one is immune from being duped and if you think you can't be, you're in for a rude awakening.

They were all lied to on almost every aspect proposed by the Bush administration for justifying the war. Everything from nuclear weapons capabilities to chemical weapons to Al Qaeda affiliations and involvement in 911. With few exceptions, they were all duped, Democrats & Republicans alike.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Is this something you have video of or is this just something another liberal progressive expounds as truth from a blog?

Do you not remember the air campaign leading up to the 1991 Gulf War? We bombed them day and night for over a month prior to any troops crossing their border.

What type of targets would you pick if you were fixing to send troops into battle there? Here let me help...command & communication infrastructure, weapons production & storage facilities, fuel production & storage facilities, electric power production & infrastructure facilities and anything else that may pose a threat to the troops you're fixing to send into the area.

The air campaign leading up to the 1991 Gulf War is pretty much a matter of history and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or liberal blogger to figure out what type of targets would be chosen despite the fact that there are plenty of videos out there portraying the bombing campaign itself.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Not really the budget is passed, and funded. Are you saying because the president once again needed the debt limit raised it nullified last years budget? That the money set aside to run the government was exhausted because we ran out of money or there wasn't money to pay for the additional expenditures of your president? As you say the same dumb-ass spending your tax money.

Just exactly where did you learn that when a budget is passed, money is set aside to fund it? I'd really like to see that procedural wording because I really think you just pulled that one from where the sun don't shine.

This is exactly why my view of the Tea Party is that it's a bunch of people who are completely ignorant of how government works, electing idiots to represent them who also don't have the first clue with respect to how government functions in this country.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Do you even know what the gadsden flag stands for or is about? If the Tea Party is the latest incarnation of the KKK how would you explain the black membership? This is very typical of a progressive mentality, cry racist when you it isn't the truth to deflect away from your bad policy. It's a weakness worthy of the ongoing propaganda perpetuated by the Liar and Chief. It shows that instead of attacking policy you attack the people because your policy is of feeble nature and you have nothing left to offer. Tsk, Tsk.

Yes, I know what the Gadsden flag stands for and IMO, it's being completely misused by the modern day Tea Party. Having a few token blacks within the Tea Party membership doesn't exonerate them from promoting regressive policies that are detrimental to minorities, people of color and the poor. If you check out your history books you'll learn that back in the day, there were black slave traders too.

On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me one bit to see you jump to show off the fact that you have a few black members, as if that fact alone would prove that you're not a regressive organization.

originally posted by: xuenchen


But that would still be better than anything Wendy Davis could spell.

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. She may just end up spelling WINNER and/or GOVERNOR before this is all over with.

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: technical difficulties
a reply to: tsingtao No, People jumped on Palin because she says stupid things. That's honestly all there is to it. None of this "she tells it like it is" and "doesn't take nonsense from anyone" (seriously, how cliche can you get?) stuff has anything to do with that, aside from probably being the reason why she makes those stupid comments in the first place.

originally posted by: Willtell
The country aught to decide to deport Sarah Plain to Mexico or maybe Guatemala

How about no because that doesn't really make any sense whatsoever.

oh yeah? what stupid stuff does she say?
all of you haters have never even heard her speak, i bet.

well she ain't no welcome oba-mat.
and lots of people shouldn't talk about saying stupid things.

hear that, harry reid, pelosi, holder, michelle, obama, biden, etc.
no one can beat them in the "wtf did they just say?" dept.

lol.

Well, for starters:



www.youtube.com...

As for the rest, ok, they've all said stupid things as well. The difference between me and you is that I can admit that person is saying stupid things regardless of their political affiliation, because not doing that would be well, stupid.

a reply to: Flatfish

Those who think they can't be lied to or fooled are probably the most susceptible among us to just that very thing. No one is immune from being duped and if you think you can't be, you're in for a rude awakening.

It was a huge awakening when the president lied over and over on Obama Care, he is definitely a professional. Even winning the Liar of the year award with politfacts.com

They were all lied to on almost every aspect proposed by the Bush administration for justifying the war. Everything from nuclear weapons capabilities to chemical weapons to Al Qaeda affiliations and involvement in 911. With few exceptions, they were all duped, Democrats & Republicans alike.

The problem is you can't have it both ways, you can't day after day remind the public how stupid Bush was then say he lied us into war. We bought his program hook line and sinker and went to war. Even Bush didn't expect to go to war on his word. The Intel committee created a report supporting his stance, and dems agreed with it and signed off on it. France, England, and Israel intel said he had them as well. Then you have Colin Powell's speech before the UN and they agreed. And yet it's all Bush's fault he lied. This is a myth perpetuated by the left in the never ending deflection of a terrible president today.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Is this something you have video of or is this just something another liberal progressive expounds as truth from a blog?Do you not remember the air campaign leading up to the 1991 Gulf War? We bombed them day and night for over a month prior to any troops crossing their border. What type of targets would you pick if you were fixing to send troops into battle there? Here let me help...command & communication infrastructure, weapons production & storage facilities, fuel production & storage facilities, electric power production & infrastructure facilities and anything else that may pose a threat to the troops you're fixing to send into the area.

The air campaign leading up to the 1991 Gulf War is pretty much a matter of history and it doesn't take a rocket scientist or liberal blogger to figure out what type of targets would be chosen despite the fact that there are plenty of videos out there portraying the bombing campaign itself.

What you were insinuating in your last post was thats why we went to war in Iraq because Rumsfeld said there were better targets there than Afghanistan. Thats not the truth. Of course I know the targets I knew the people involved. I know the group that eliminated radar stations on the ground prior to the air campaign.


originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Not really the budget is passed, and funded. Are you saying because the president once again needed the debt limit raised it nullified last years budget? That the money set aside to run the government was exhausted because we ran out of money or there wasn't money to pay for the additional expenditures of your president? As you
say the same dumb-ass spending your tax money.

This is exactly why my view of the Tea Party is that it's a bunch of people who are completely ignorant of how government works, electing idiots to represent them who also don't have the first clue with respect to how government functions in this country.

Wow that is harsh, but doesn't suprise me, if you weren't afraid of the Tea Party everyone knows you wouldn't attack them this way, or spread BS about them either. I think you're losing your civility here.

Just exactly where did you learn that when a budget is passed, money is set aside to fund it? I'd really like to see that procedural wording because I really think you just pulled that one from where the sun don't shine.

The President submits a budget request to Congress
The House and Senate pass budget resolutions
House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees “markup” appropriations bills
The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law
Then the Budget is funded as per law.
Sometimes when the process takes to long Appropriations Bills are necessary to fund
things like national disasters until the budget becomes law.

Maybe you could add something more?



originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Do you even know what the gadsden flag stands for or is about? If the Tea Party is the latest incarnation of the KKK how would you explain the black membership? This is very typical of a progressive mentality, cry racist when you it isn't the truth to deflect away from your bad policy. It's a weakness worthy of the ongoing propaganda perpetuated by the Liar and Chief. It shows that instead of attacking policy you attack the people because your policy is of feeble nature and you have nothing left to offer. Tsk, Tsk.


Yes, I know what the Gadsden flag stands for and IMO, it's being completely misused by the modern day Tea Party. Having a few token blacks within the Tea Party membership doesn't exonerate them from promoting regressive policies that are detrimental to minorities, people of color and the poor. If you check out your history books you'll learn that back in the day, there were black slave traders too.

No need to check history books, I am fully aware of Black history regarding slavery. Your president now is worse for blacks than anyone else. He has created additional dependencies for the black population. Even they have become dissatisfied with him, everyone's favorite black reverend calls him the "N" word.

And now the Tea Party has "Token Blacks" that sounds racist. Tea Party Blacks make 7% of their membership considering 6 million protested last year. Thats a bit more than a token. This is what I mean you have only opinion not even remotely backed with any facts and in the end the Tea Party has "Token Blacks". You do a disservice to yourself and your ideology.

On the other hand, it doesn't surprise me one bit to see you jump to show off the fact that you have a few black members, as if that fact alone would prove that you're not a regressive organization.

The Tea Party doesn't have to prove anything just replace bad politicians whenever and wherever they can.

It is estimated the Tea Party has between 6 and 7 million members, 6% on the bottom number would be 360,000 far better than a token.

Regressive would be, the Obama immigration policy, allowing the rich to enjoy even lower tax rates, doubling of food stamps, creating health care legislation that at the minimum doubles premiums, an IRS that intimidates anyone with opinions contrary to the administration, Walking guns across the border to drug cartels, letting veterans die while waiting for appt. lying over and over to pass legislation no one wants, involving ourselves in politics of other countries while creating civil wars, running for office and repeating the same things of the Bush doctrine, silently resigning the Patriot act, bailing out banks at the expense of taxpayers so they get burned twice, picking losing green companies that don't pan out after 100's of millions, spending 800 Billion and not getting any "shovel Ready Jobs", and the ultimate regressiveness touting transparency while withholding documents on several different scandals. Obama adds a whole new dimension to the word regressive wouldn't you agree?

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

The problem is you can't have it both ways, you can't day after day remind the public how stupid Bush was then say he lied us into war. We bought his program hook line and sinker and went to war. Even Bush didn't expect to go to war on his word. The Intel committee created a report supporting his stance, and dems agreed with it and signed off on it. France, England, and Israel intel said he had them as well. Then you have Colin Powell's speech before the UN and they agreed. And yet it's all Bush's fault he lied. This is a myth perpetuated by the left in the never ending deflection of a terrible president today.

Really? Are we talking about the same France that opposed the war? An action that caused the nut-jobs here in America to start referring to their french fries as "Freedom Fries?"

With respect to England, have you ever heard of the "Downing Street Memo?" You know, the secret memo discussing the build-up leading to the Iraq War being based on false pretenses?

And then there's our good friend Israel... Do you really think that Israel is going to stand in the way of literally anyone on the planet who is willing to bomb the # out of Arabs or Muslims?

As I stated previously, Colin Powell was lied to and duped into giving the U.N. presentation believing what he was presenting was true. That's precisely why he chose to resign his post at the first opportunity after realizing what they had him do.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
What you were insinuating in your last post was thats why we went to war in Iraq because Rumsfeld said there were better targets there than Afghanistan. Thats not the truth. Of course I know the targets I knew the people involved. I know the group that eliminated radar stations on the ground prior to the air campaign.

You may want to check out "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke. He was the Anti-Terror Czar for the CIA under Bush during the lead-up to the war and he tells a completely different story.

www.ontheissues.org...

Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
The President submits a budget request to Congress
The House and Senate pass budget resolutions
House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees “markup” appropriations bills
The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law
Then the Budget is funded as per law.
Sometimes when the process takes to long Appropriations Bills are necessary to fund
things like national disasters until the budget becomes law.

Maybe you could add something more?

Did you just make that list up? I was hoping that you would document your assertions in a little more official fashion and NO, I wouldn't like to add anything to your "Off The Top Of Your Head" version of how budgets get funded in this country.

Who would a thunk it would be so simple? Simple minded people, that's who.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

The problem is you can't have it both ways, you can't day after day remind the public how stupid Bush was then say he lied us into war. We bought his program hook line and sinker and went to war. Even Bush didn't expect to go to war on his word. The Intel committee created a report supporting his stance, and dems agreed with it and signed off on it. France, England, and Israel intel said he had them as well. Then you have Colin Powell's speech before the UN and they agreed. And yet it's all Bush's fault he lied. This is a myth perpetuated by the left in the never ending deflection of a terrible president today.

Really? Are we talking about the same France that opposed the war? An action that caused the nut-jobs here in America to start referring to their french fries as "Freedom Fries?"

With respect to England, have you ever heard of the "Downing Street Memo?" You know, the secret memo discussing the build-up leading to the Iraq War being based on false pretenses?

And then there's our good friend Israel... Do you really think that Israel is going to stand in the way of literally anyone on the planet who is willing to bomb the # out of Arabs or Muslims?

As I stated previously, Colin Powell was lied to and duped into giving the U.N. presentation believing what he was presenting was true. That's precisely why he chose to resign his post at the first opportunity after realizing what they had him do.

So he (Bush) duped all of congress, the intel committee members, senate, Colin Powell, UN members, even the brilliant Hillary Clinton? Wow I hope she doesn't ever get elected president if she is so easily duped into war. We know how easily she was duped into a Benghazi lie. How easily she has always been duped by her philandering husband. And Australia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom were all duped as well.

How long are you willing to keep up the Bush lied montra, and all these people were duped because he lied?

Sorry I missed one with France but Iraq was such a good customer.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
What you were insinuating in your last post was thats why we went to war in Iraq because Rumsfeld said there were better targets there than Afghanistan. Thats not the truth. Of course I know the targets I knew the people involved. I know the group that eliminated radar stations on the ground prior to the air campaign.

You may want to check out "Against All Enemies" by Richard Clarke. He was the Anti-Terror Czar for the CIA under Bush during the lead-up to the war and he tells a completely different story.

It's comical you would use a spook to back your claim. lol

www.ontheissues.org...

Powell shook his head. "It's not over yet." Indeed, it was not. Later in the day, Secy. Rumsfeld complained that there were no decent targets for bombing in Afghanistan and that we should consider bombing Iraq, which, he said, had better targets. At first I thought Rumsfeld was joking. But he was serious and the President did not reject out of hand the idea of attacking Iraq. Instead, he noted that what we needed to do with Iraq was to change the government, not just hit it with more cruise missiles, as Rumsfeld had implied.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
The President submits a budget request to Congress
The House and Senate pass budget resolutions
House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees “markup” appropriations bills
The House and Senate vote on appropriations bills and reconcile differences
The President signs each appropriations bill and the budget becomes law
Then the Budget is funded as per law.
Sometimes when the process takes to long Appropriations Bills are necessary to fund
things like national disasters until the budget becomes law.

Maybe you could add something more?

Did you just make that list up? I was hoping that you would document your assertions in a little more official fashion and NO, I wouldn't like to add anything to your "Off The Top Of Your Head" version of how budgets get funded in this country.

Who would a thunk it would be so simple? Simple minded people, that's who.

Instead of being contentious, why don't you prove me wrong.. Show the world how smart you are. Use my information and refute what I have said for the budget. I'll wait...

I never said I was a Tea Party member but you certainly have solidified that for me. It will be a pleasure to remove people with your ideology from government.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Instead of being contentious, why don't you prove me wrong.. Show the world how smart you are. Use my information and refute what I have said for the budget. I'll wait...

I never said I was a Tea Party member but you certainly have solidified that for me. It will be a pleasure to remove people with your ideology from government.

Look, I'm not going to do your research for you. You're the one who posted what you believe to be our "plain & simple" budget approval and funding process here in America. One that either intentionally or ignorantly neglected to even make mention of any role that "debt. limit" restrictions may have when it comes time to pay the actual bills incurred while administering the budget in question.

Hell, you didn't mention the "debt limit" at all and if I'm not mistaken, it was the govt. shutdown and the pursuant closings of national parks coupled with your "Bachmann to the rescue" comments that led to this portion of our debate in the first place.

My understanding is that our national budget, (much like an individual's budget) is a "proposal" of what we expect to take in and spend during a predetermined period of time, (providing everything goes as planned) requiring approval of all three branches of government. There is no such thing as "set aside funding" for a budget once it's approved, not at the federal level and in most cases, not at the individual level either.

Seeing how a budget is a projection of both, future income & expenses, it would seem kinda hard to set aside money that has yet to be collected. Call me stupid, but common sense pretty much leads me to that conclusion. Hell, the only time that I can think of where that would even be possible would have been during the "surplus years" under Bill Clinton.

The debt. limit on the other hand, is the congressionally authorized limit that our government can borrow to meets it's actual financial obligations and kinda like a person's individual credit ratings, when you don't pay your bills your ratings drop causing adverse consequences to reverberate throughout your entire budget plan.

If things always went as planned, there would never be a need to borrow money at the individual level and there would't be need for a national "debt. limit" either, but they don't!"

You know, things like lying us into a 2 trillion dollar unfunded war with Iraq. Surely you remember, it was the one where the Iraqis were going to treat us as liberators and use their oil revenues to pay for the cost of the war/liberation.

originally posted by: neo96
This American to people that don't like Sarah Palin:

What don't like free speech ?

The only speech allowed is what you agree with ?

The first amendment isn't just a part time law.

For the record.

Quick silence any ideology other than your own ! ! ! ! !

Now where have I heard that before ?

Free speech also means you can tell people you think are idiots to shut up.

They dont have to listen to that and shut the hell up but you got the right to tell them anyway.

originally posted by: neo96
I really love this thread.

All the animosity towards Palin, and they clearly IGNORE their own.

Like the Pelosi's, Clintons, Waters, Boxers.

I hate to break it to Palin haters I know the left loves to claim their leaders have the patent on 'intellectual superiority' over the right.

To date NONE have ever proven it.

Just cause you dislike palin doesn't autonomously = Pelosi's, Clintons, Waters, Boxers.

The worlds not that 2 dimensional.

It that line of thinking that has the USA stuck in a two party system in a downward spiral to economic and social collapse.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: seeker1963

There was that recent poll that found that Obama was the suckiest president since WWII.

(but I guess that one didn't count)

A poll on shutting up Palin?

VALID!

(roll eyes emoticon here)

I dont know Lyndon Johnson was pretty sucky.

originally posted by: Flatfish

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

Instead of being contentious, why don't you prove me wrong.. Show the world how smart you are. Use my information and refute what I have said for the budget. I'll wait...

I never said I was a Tea Party member but you certainly have solidified that for me. It will be a pleasure to remove people with your ideology from government.

Look, I'm not going to do your research for you. You're the one who posted what you believe to be our "plain & simple" budget approval and funding process here in America. One that either intentionally or ignorantly neglected to even make mention of any role that "debt. limit" restrictions may have when it comes time to pay the actual bills incurred while administering the budget in question.

Hell, you didn't mention the "debt limit" at all and if I'm not mistaken, it was the govt. shutdown and the pursuant closings of national parks coupled with your "Bachmann to the rescue" comments that led to this portion of our debate in the first place.

There is no need to mention the debt limit it is done during appropriations and only comes into effect when money runs out post budget appropriations. Kind of like saying you have a 100 bucks in your wallet and that is the money you have to spend after negotiating with your spouse. You get a flat and need a new tire on the way home from shopping, and viola' you have reached your debt ceiling and need to raise the debt limit.

My understanding is that our national budget, (much like an individual's budget) is a "proposal" of what we expect to take in and spend during a predetermined period of time, (providing everything goes as planned) requiring approval of all three branches of government. There is no such thing as "set aside funding" for a budget once it's approved, not at the federal level and in most cases, not at the individual level either.

Seeing how a budget is a projection of both, future income & expenses, it would seem kinda hard to set aside money that has yet to be collected. Call me stupid, but common sense pretty much leads me to that conclusion. Hell, the only time that I can think of where that would even be possible would have been during the "surplus years" under Bill Clinton.

The debt. limit on the other hand, is the congressionally authorized limit that our government can borrow to meets it's actual financial obligations and kinda like a person's individual credit ratings, when you don't pay your bills your ratings drop causing adverse consequences to reverberate throughout your entire budget plan.

If things always went as planned, there would never be a need to borrow money at the individual level and there would't be need for a national "debt. limit" either, but they don't!"

[b]If there was no funding, what would be the point of budgets and limits? Just keep paying whatever you want whenever you feel the need, and the president wouldn't have to ask for money from congress for all of these illegals.

You know, things like lying us into a 2 trillion dollar unfunded war with Iraq. Surely you remember, it was the one where the Iraqis were going to treat us as liberators and use their oil revenues to pay for the cost of the war/liberation.

I am not saying it was a smart thing to go there, I am just saying is this isn't something you can lay entirely at the feet of GWB, and ask yourself, who feeds him (the president) the info. We have so many intelligence agencies who knows which one fed him the information. Some of these agencies report to congress for oversight with the same info he receives. Look at it this way, did Bush fly over to Iraq look around and say he has WMD's? No, but I assure you someone did, and that someone was sent there at the behest of intel to take a look for themselves on the ground to verify satellite info. How it gets blown out of proportion at that point who can say that happens in the halls of buildings no one knows exist. There are many dirty hands. Now if you want to talk lying lets talk liar of the year.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace

There is no need to mention the debt limit it is done during appropriations and only comes into effect when money runs out post budget appropriations. Kind of like saying you have a 100 bucks in your wallet and that is the money you have to spend after negotiating with your spouse. You get a flat and need a new tire on the way home from shopping, and viola' you have reached your debt ceiling and need to raise the debt limit.

And here we are.... You seem to feel like the "debt. limit" isn't even worthy of mention while Ted Cruz and the rest of his nutty-assed Tea Party cohorts in Washington seem to think it's worthy enough to waste taxpayer time & money with a rendition of "Green Eggs & Ham" and a government shutdown.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
If there was no funding, what would be the point of budgets and limits? Just keep paying whatever you want whenever you feel the need, and the president wouldn't have to ask for money from congress for all of these illegals.

For starters, I don't remember anyone saying that there was no funding. What I said or at least what I was trying to say, was that the funding to support the budget is not pre-collected and "set aside" at the time the budget gets approved. A budget is a projection of both, expected revenues and expected expenditures for a given time frame and I'm not sure how you would "set aside" funding that has not yet been collected. Unless of course, there were surplus funds left over from previous years which we all know hasn't happened since Bill Clinton was in office.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
I am not saying it was a smart thing to go there, I am just saying is this isn't something you can lay entirely at the feet of GWB, and ask yourself, who feeds him (the president) the info. We have so many intelligence agencies who knows which one fed him the information. Some of these agencies report to congress for oversight with the same info he receives. Look at it this way, did Bush fly over to Iraq look around and say he has WMD's? No, but I assure you someone did, and that someone was sent there at the behest of intel to take a look for themselves on the ground to verify satellite info. How it gets blown out of proportion at that point who can say that happens in the halls of buildings no one knows exist. There are many dirty hands.

Yeah! Who the hell was it that on Monday, August 6, 2001, (36 days prior to the 9-11 attacks) gave President Bush his presidential daily brief or PDF entitled "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US"?

That would be none other than the CIA and based on his position there at the time, I say Richard Clarke had something to do with it's contents.

Based on your previous post, it's apparent that you view Richard Clarke as a shill but I do not. If anything, I view him in just the opposite light because history shows me that he was one of the few people who got it right.

As I stated earlier, if you'd take the time to read his book "Against All Enemies," you'll come to understand that the Bush administration rejected intelligence that did not implicate Iraq in the 9-11 attacks and repeatedly insisted that the CIA develop intel that could be used to justify a war there. This was done despite repeated insistence by the CIA that the 9-11 attacks were orchestrated by Al Qaeda and NOT Saddam.

The same thing happened when Valerie Plame contradicted the Bush administration's claims regarding the famous "aluminum tubes." They rejected her information and exposed her secret identity as a CIA operative for disagreeing with them. In England, the "Downing Street Memo" pretty much showed that the UK government was knowingly in on the deceit leading us into that war as well.

originally posted by: MarlinGrace
Now if you want to talk lying lets talk liar of the year.

Yeah, why don't you try talking that crap to the families of the 4500 americans who lost there lives in that war, not to mention the families of the 32,000 american wounded or the countless Iraqi families who suffered as well.

It's like one person lied about how many marbles they had in their pocket while the other lied about there not being poison in the tea they're serving you. While they're both lies, one has little if any adverse effects while the other can be deadly.

originally posted by: neo96
The only speech allowed is what you agree with ?

Pretty much, it's this way around the world with everyone on everything. "It's only OK when I believe what you do, if not shut up because you're wrong and I'm right and only my rights matter".

I see this on ATS quite often unfortunately. (ATS is however a private forum and not subject to the first amendment, but that doesn't change peoples attitudes.)